John Locke 1.

Locke stated that mankind was created equally by God and had two fundamental laws of nature that governed them. The first law outlined that the life, health, liberty, or possessions of every individual should be protected. The second law stated that individuals have the right to administer punishment if their rights were violated. Locke added that individuals can defend one anothers rights because everyone had the same values, and that one offender would potentially be a threat to everyone else. He explained that there can be no subordination among humans that would allow harming anothers life. However, it would be okay for an individual to be punished or killed in order to prevent him from further transgressing the law of nature. Locke then explained that it was lawful for an individual to punish an offender if they are punished with a level proportional to the severity of the offense. The reason for punishment was either to prevent the offender from continuing the crimes, or as reparation for the victim that was harmed by the offender. He wrote that every man had the right to the preserve mankind, and thus one who transgressed the law of nature would essentially be declaring war on mankind. A transgressor who has slaughtered men can consequently be treated as if he was a dangerous animal, and be justifiably killed by another to prevent further harm to the society. Essentially, Locke argued that every offence made by a person can subject them to an equally great punishment. 2. In the state of nature, everything belonged to mankind in common. Locke stated that God created the world for men to utilize for their own benefit. He stated that the idea of property began with an individuals labor. Locke believed that since individuals owned their labor, any labor placed on a common entity would become property of the laborer. One good example is a

farmer who clears a small forest and spends years preparing the farmland and planting seed. If this piece of land is not wasted and is fully utilized by the farmer, he has the right to own this land as his property. This notion however, is not always true because there are cases where one does not own the land he cultivates. For example, if there was a piece of uncultivated land that functioned as a park for the community, one cannot simply take it as property by cultivating it since the park was a placed that was used by everyone. Locked pointed out that if I were to make an output by mixing an input with labor that I own, then I do not always own all the output. He explained that nothing made by God was for man to waste. Therefore, man can only own up to what maximally satisfied him. Unless he planned to sell his output, he must share extra outputs that he made and cannot hoard all of it for himself. This idea can be applied when an individual cultivates a piece of land. The individual cannot take all the resources and land for himself because he must share them with mankind. If the food he produces rots or the land begins to dry and wither, the individual is overusing his portion of resources and is thus transgressing the law of nature. A transgressor who is violating this common law of nature is subject to punishment. 3. Lockes theory of property does not give justification for an individual who drives a car as far, as fast, or as often as he wants, even if he does not kill or injure anyone. One major problem with the individual driving the car was that he was releasing an unreasonably high amount of pollution into the air. Because Locke argued that God created the world for the common use of mankind, the air was for everyone to use. The lack of moderation in car use dirties the public air and thus violated Lockes theory of property. The theory of property proposed by Locke states that the air is a common entity belonging to everyone. By releasing

excessive amounts of pollution into the air, the individual is thus harming the common environment and is inducing climate change. However, there are some restraints to the concept of property proposed by Locke. First of all, land does not always become property of another even after mixing it with labor. Second, one must not waste and hoard all the resources and land for himself. The latter issue is portrayed by the driver because the individual was wasting a high amount of gasoline. Since gasoline was a natural resource, the individual could not hoard excessive amounts and thus must ensure that others get a fair share of it. 4. Locke focused on the idea of consent in his discussion of the beginnings of political societies. He first laid out that all humans were made free and equal by nature and thus cannot be subjected in any manner except through consent. In order to form a commonwealth or community, every individual must agree to the formation and consent to giving up some of their rights to a higher power. However, there was a flaw to this notion. It was clear that not everyone in our society have openly expressed their consent to the government. Locke solves this issue through his concept of tacit consent. Tacit consent was the idea that one silently agreed to obey the laws of the government if one was currently reaping the benefits of this government. By living in a society protected and maintained by the government, and owning any type of property in this domain, one was automatically considered to be in the state of tacit consent. Locke points out that a son who inherits the property and power of his father tacitly consents to the government because he gains property that was located within the commonwealth as well as the security it provided. In my life, I have tacitly consented to the laws of the United States all the time. Like most individuals, I have never openly expressed my consent to the laws of the government. However,

by living in my house which was located in the United States and reaping the protection provided by the government, I tacitly consented to obey the laws put forth by them. By accepting the protection of the police for example, I tacitly consented to not break any laws myself. If I broke a law, I would justifiably be placed in jail because I have already given the government my consent. Another example of my tacit consent to the government was paying taxes while I worked. By paying taxes, I helped support government infrastructure as well as help pay for useful components in society such as roads, education, and law enforcements. From these benefits I gained, I have thus tacitly consented to the laws of the government. This can be considered as tacit consent because I have never openly expressed my agreement to the laws. The paying of taxes can be treated as an indirect agreement to obey the government. As I travel on the road with my car, I am tacitly consenting to the government as well. By following the traffic lights and basic driving ruleseven if no one was presentI am tacitly consenting to the governments laws. The road I traveled on with my car was part of the territory and possession of the government. Locke pointed out that if I traveled on the territory of the government, I am tacitly consenting to obey the laws of that government. If I were to break a traffic law, I would be punished for my wrongdoing because I have already consented to subject myself to the rules and consequences of the government. Tacit consent is associated with those that want to agree with the government they are under. Those who live under a government but are forced to agree are not tacitly consenting. One example is the people of did not flee from Vietnam after the new communist government formed. The few who stayed did not agree with the new government, but had no choice but to

obey and follow along with the new laws. This is thus a case of necessity rather than desire because those who remained in Vietnam may have stayed for their families.